Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes "A radical Islamic website is warning the creators of South Park that they could face violent retribution for depicting the Prophet Muhammad in a bear suit during an episode broadcast on Comedy Central last week. RevolutionMuslim.com posted the warning following the 200th episode of Trey Parker and Matt Stone's South Park."

What surprised me even more is that I don't recall anybody saying anything back then. Nevertheless, apparently Comedy Central is now refusing to show depiction of Muhammad so it seems the authors decided to masquerade him as a bear.

Al Amrikee said the website is considering a protest against the "disgusting" show, which also depicted the Prophet Muhammad in an episode on July 4, 2001.

I remember that one, I think it opened with a bugs bunny-ish skit depicting Bin Laden in some slapstick comedy.

What I want to know is how Al Amrikee feels about Fox news hosting the image of Muhammad in a bear suit in the article? And how does he feel now that his comment has had the Streisand effect and Foxnews.com is showing it to many more people that don't have access to cable television. Wouldn't he, as part of the distribution channel and medium, be also on sa

The reverse is also true though, this is getting Al Amrikee much more attention than he deserves.

Really? I think he deserves a little more attention. I eagerly await the South Park episode where a whiny little pissant runs around saying, "This is not a threat but a warning that you are on murder lists..." to everyone in South Park. It'd be hard but I have confidence that Matt and Trey would adequately portray the stupidity of Al Amrikee. "Raising awareness?" More like a power trip or inciting a murder.

I really don't understand why the Muslim community is not publicly outraged at these people that give their faith a bad name.

They are. There have been plenty of attempts by communities all over North America and the Middle East to raise awareness about the section of the community (read: a big slice, probably the biggest slice ie the majority) that is completely opposed to these assholes. I've gone to public discussions about the true nature of Jihad (it's an intellectual and spiritual struggle, not a physical or fanatical war), I've visited the Middle East, and I've talked to my Muslim friends in Canada, and pretty much as a u

What I've found talking with moderate Muslims from Muslim-majority countries is that they are all for tolerance in principle, but in specific instances they'll say "Yeah but why do they want to say THAT about Muhammed? What does that contribute to free speech?" and so on.

We don't exactly help the situation when we have Western countries that outlaw hate speech (e.g. Canada, which recently threatened Anne Coulter when she was going to speak at a university).

I don't know if you've ever read Terry Pratchett novels, but a recurring joke is when the police investigate a death and classify it as suicide instead of murder - because the person did something provocative that would obviously lead to murder. The assumption is that the people who murdered him HAD to murder him.

Muslim countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan have a segmented society and the moderate, liberalized, urban Muslims who you typically see as journalists, authors, etc, are very much like Terry Pratchett's characters. They see a huge segment of their population as beyond help. The bad Muslims have a "tribal" (not "Muslim") culture. They are uneducated and ignorant. They don't know the true Islam. Maybe they are funded/co-opted by the CIA/Israel/India/Blackwater. Whatever the excuse, the purpose is to say "See, we have all these people who JUST HAVE TO get violent when you do something un-Islamic like insult Muhammed, promote women's education, say something positive about the US."

So for the sake of the stability of their society, they say, they can't support the kind of "destructive" free speech that we want them to support.

The debatable part (for us) is whether those "tribal" people really don't understand Islam, or if it's the moderate and liberal minority who doesn't understand Islam. (As if there's one "Islam" anyway.) And to what degree the moderates are actually moderate compared to using the "tribal" excuse to appear moderate while pragmatically leaning towards fundamentalism.

What I've found talking with moderate Muslims from Muslim-majority countries is that they are all for tolerance in principle, but in specific instances they'll say "Yeah but why do they want to say THAT about Muhammed? What does that contribute to free speech?" and so on.

That's not a disease specific to Islam, though. There are plenty of people -- possibly a majority -- in the US, other Western countries, and on Slashdot who support freedom "X" in principle but are opposed to any specific use of freedom "X". When pressed they either react just like those Muslims, or babble about how liberty is not license, or talk about how rights have to be balanced with responsibilities, or whatever. There are few who actually support freedom in practice.

do you expect them to get violent and angry about people getting violent and angry in their name? If that's not actually how they are, then the "reaction" will be substantially more passive.

For my part, I saw an ad right after 9/11 for an outreach from the Muslims to demonstrate their faith and that they didn't want to kill white people. So I showed up, talked to a few guys for a long while. During the discussion I learned that if someone asks about their faith, then one of the core principles is that the person has to stop right then and there and explain it to them. Then I learned that the guy that was doing most of the talking had his wife sitting in the car for the 2 hours he had been in there with me - he seemed sensitive to the fact that this was the case, but...fact is, there was no where on the grounds that the wife was allowed to be other than in the car in the parking lot. Not that I was going to be converted anyway, but the fact that the wife wasn't even allowed in the building...or any other buildings on the ground...they can talk all they want about being the "religion of peace" but sorry, I have a bit too much respect for women for that.

<sarcasm>Yes, because we all know that Christians have NEVER tried to hurt anyone for believing differently than them.</sarcasm>

The problem is humans tend to want to kill/remove/banish anyone who doesn't agree with the local groupthink. Be it religion, science (global warming, for instance) or just cultural. The problem is that "beliefs" are held up high while "ideas" are not. Most religions amplify this tendency. Try being a non-Christian in the US today, it is a pain in the ass because of

I'd put even money on them having been sent threatening mail from otherwise respectable Christians in the past. It just happens so often that no one really makes a big deal out of it. As an example, the guy who started FSM has a collection of threatening, angry letters posted on his site.

Maybe it's because although some Christians might send angry letters they are very unlikely to act on it. Muslims, on the other hand, already have. One recent high profile example: Theo van Gogh. Then were all the violent protests over those cartoons.

Then there are those who had to go into hiding. Salman Rushdie had a bounty on his head for many years as have many others who criticized or mocked Islam in some way. And sometimes this happens for fairly benign reasons, but it just happens to draw the ire of the right people.

Yep, Christians are just as capable of being cold blooded murderers and terrorists as fanatical members of Islam are. The problem isn't Islam, its religious extremism, period. Sure, Islam is in the news the most right now - and doing the most harm, no question, but there are fanatical Christian Extremists out there who are just as dangerous and deserve the same treatment.
The problem is that some of those fanatical religious extremists (or at least their supporters) are in Government here in North America, and in the Media.
I am far more afraid of Rightwing Fanatical Christians and what they can do to affect my life than I am of radical muslim extremists.

...because murdering babies (sorry late-term fetuses) is clearly equivalent to drawing a cartoon of a guy in a bear suit and just as likely to trigger a violent response from extremest religious activists.

If you don't understand the equivalence, you might just be a religious extremist.

Jews don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah, Muslims don't recognize the Jews as God's Chosen People, and Christians don't recognize each other at the strip club...

Muslims believe in a line of prophets that included Moses and Jesus, of which Muhammad is the last and greatest. So they beleive the words of Muhammad supercede those of all earlier prophets, although cling pretty tightly to Abrahamic laws, which makes them very similar to the Jews (I believe both were originally Caananites anyway.) Anybody familiar with the Gnostic Gospels [wikipedia.org] might objectively conclude that Christianity HAS been corrupted from it's founders original tenets. Islam has been corrupted to a lesser extent, if only because it hasn't been around as long and it has insisted that study of the Koran be done in the original Arabic, unlike the hundreds of translations that have been done of the Holy Bible. Nevertheless, Muslims continue to kill each other over arguments related to which of Muhammed's sons inherited which responsibilities for preserving the faith. But ultimately, Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the God of Abraham. Monotheism was invented by the Jews, and for that I may never forgive them.;-)

For Muslims degrading Mohammad is more akin to desecrating a grave or religious building

I'm pretty sure I can depict the vatican burning to the ground in a cartoon and get no more serious reaction than angry letters. Desecrating a grave might get you a picket line and some verbal insults. Even if others reacted just as extremely to this 'analogous' situations, where does it say that doing so is right?

I'm not agreeing with their tactics, but really, a little respect for someone's religion might not be too much to ask.

I respect islam as much as I respect any religion (not much). Respecting and treating it as sacred are two very different things. I am *more* inclined toward 'blasphemous' behavior by people like you who ask that I "show some respect"--No! I will however pee on a bible and send you some pictures of jesus and buddha having hot gay sex. If you don't likeit show some respect by not asking me to 'show respect' which is just code for "adhere to the dictates of my religion even if you don't believe them."

If someone defiled a child's grave how would you feel about that?I'd laugh my ass off. If it were the grave of a loved one I'd probably be a little angry and want to catch the guy, maybe even beat him up. But, I'd rather have him punished by the law. If what he did was *talk* about defiling my child's grave, as opposed to actually doing it, I would feel a little bad but *would not seek any kind of retribution, because I don't believe he did anything wrong.*

Three two one hypocrite, right? Applying my sense of right and wrong to the situation and then complaining that I don't like what Muslims are doing because they are applying their sense of right and wrong. I'm expecting them to live up to my standards but saying that I shouldn't live up to theirs, right? Right. The principle I apply here is: My house, my rules. In America, where the South Park creators live, it is in no way illegal or shameful to do what they did, therefore they ought to be under no duress as a result.

Respect is a two way street, if you want someone to respect you and your beliefs you have to be willing to respect them and their belief.

See the above. Everybody *cannot* respect everybody, where "respect" is "follow my code of morality whether I believe it or not" which is what you really mean anyway (no, really, think about it). What I want is to not have my life be in jeopardy unless I'm violating a law in the country where I reside, even if I am violating a law elsewhere. Religious law? If you want it to apply to me write it in to my country's legal code. I think that's as fair and 'respectful' as we can get.

It's the right-wingers in general that, apparently, are far more likely to get violent...

There have been plenty of left-wing extremists as well: the Black Panthers, Simbionese Liberation Army, Weathermen Underground, etc. Tendency toward violence is not a left/right thing, it's an asshat/non-asshat thing.

Absolutely. Really, I should've said "In today's political climate, it's the right-wingers in general that...". I certainly didn't mean to cast aspersions upon *all* right-wingers. But they are *currently* housing (and, I would argue, encouraging) a kernel of extremism within their ranks.

Let me first state that I don't condone terrorism of any kind from anyone. Having said that, your comparison between The Troubles and jihadi's is flawed. Irish terrorism was motivated more by politics than religion, whereas the opposite is true with Al Queada.

Sure, the IRA played heavily on the Catholic vs. non-Catholic angle as a recruiting tool, and Al Queada plays on the Imperialist vs. anti-Imperialist angle for the same reason. But Irish terrorism was mainly political (i.e. get the Brits out so we can run our own country) not like Al Queada (kill all the infidels and impose an Islamic caliphate world order).

The IRA were, and are, Marxists in all but name. If you doubt, read the Sinn Fein manifesto, available online now. What, you never heard that on the news? How could that be? The rule, "All terrorists are collectivists or Muslims" is only rarely violated.

Apples and Oranges. Ireland was a nationalist thing, not a Christian thing. Call us when Spanish Catholics blow up subways in London because of what they perceive as British atrocities against their fellow Catholics.

British born muslims of Pakistani heritage blowing up the London subway because of British involvement in the war = Religious.

Irish terrorists blowing up shit in the UK and the rest of the catholic world not really giving a shit about it = Nationalist.

Part of the problem with the Western understanding and handling of Islam is that Islam is inherently political as well as religious. Like the Old Testament, Islam dictates many of the laws that a society is supposed to have in order to please Allah. Christians get around that by saying the Old Testament was for another time, but many Muslim-majority societies do not. Even Muslim communities within non-Muslim host societies want to have Islamic "law" to the extent possible, such as in England by taking advantage of contract law and arbitration and using Islamic law as a basis for contracts in civil issues like marriage, inheritance, etc.

People like you try to say the same thing about Christianity. The IRA are Christian terrorists because they are terrorists who are Christian and want to kick out rulers of another sect of Christianity. Okay, that's true, but are they kicking out those rulers so that they can set up a certain Christian *society* as well? Are they going to not allow freedom of religion? Have special rules and laws for people of other religions?

I don't think the IRA ever claimed to want any of those things, but that's exactly what Muslim groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda want. That's why people like me don't understand or agree with those kinds of comparisons. Sure there are groups-that-are-composed-of-Christians who do bad things, but there are very few organized Christian groups that are pushing for actual Christian rule.

Most Christians and most Muslism are better than this. Please don't equate extremist Islam to all of Islam. You don't hear people accusing all Christians of acting like the westboro baptist church now do you?

It's hard not to notice that acceptance of the local varieties of Westboro Baptist Church are much higher among Muslims than they are among Christians. With Muslims, while many don't directly participate in acts of terror, when you ask around whether they support or condone it (and I mean not just anecdotal, but various polls etc), a lot show quiet support.

Then there are people like this guy [nzherald.co.nz], who try to project the "progressive Muslim" image to fit into their society, but, again, don't find anything wrong with various barbaric practices associated with Islam as such - only in the context of the (westernized, humanistic) culture they're stranded in.

There are many more words, but just assume I can rattle off at a dozen Christian terrorist attacks against abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood offices without resorting to Wikipedia.

And just to save myself a round of back and forth with an apologist for these acts of Christian terrorism, let me pre-emptively give my likely response: the Ku Klux Klan. They don't exactly burn those crosses for warmth, you know...

There are many more words, but just assume I can rattle off at a dozen Christian terrorist attacks against abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood offices without resorting to Wikipedia.

Not to downplay the harm that Christianity causes.... but for every one of your dozen Christian terrorist attacks, I can point to a hundred that were conducted by Muslims. The casualty count is even more disproportionate than that. And then there's little things like... oh, I dunno... how about the fact that the Saudis just recently sentenced a man to death for the crime of SORCERY, because he was "predicting the future" on his television show. Yep, you read that right. Sending magical beams through the air to a box that displays your image... that's fine... but pretending to predict the future, now that's going too far! And the fact that this is happening in the year 2010.... it really makes you want to cry.

So yeah, pick on the Christians all you like, I really don't give a damn. But let's not draw any stupid equivalences. The Christians may be stuck a hundred years in the past, but the Muslims insist on beating that record by an order of magnitude.

Not to downplay the harm that Christianity causes.... but for every one of your dozen Christian terrorist attacks, I can point to a hundred that were conducted by Muslims.

The sad thing to me is not many people know about those attacks only because they didn't happen here and our media doesn't shove them in our faces 24/7.

As a result people don't understand the enormity of Islamic extremism. They can peacefully think of it as a fringe activity or "tiny minority" that lives in remote caves or something.

It would have been great to see more coverage of Taliban activity in Pakistan over the last few years. A lot of people don't understand or don't see the point in "helping" the Afghans, probably because they don't know that e.g. when the Taliban took over the Swat Valley in Pakistan they bombed or burned down over 100 girls schools. They hung signs in the market places saying "No women allowed". It's a very large, widespread, in your face phenomenon, not a few guys with long beards making videos and holding occasional marches.

The crusades ended over 700 years ago. Since then the Catholic church has changed dramatically. The pope is no longer the ruler of any kind of an empire. In fact, in the US, he is pretty much just a dirty joke. Since the end of the crusades western civilization has gone through the Renaissance, the Reformation, a long series of civil wars, that has all but eliminated the direct influence of organized religion on government. We've gone through the whole experience of the new world and contact with the civilizations of the Americas, Japan, China, India, Africa, Southeast Asia.... the list is too long to write and I appologize to those I missed.

In other words we have changed. We are not the people who carried out the crusades.

In the US we have as a basic concept of law that the government may not interfere with the practice of your religion so long as that practice does not infringe on the rights of other people to live their lives as they see fit. We aren't perfect on holding to that principle. But, it explains why I can be a Buddhist living in Texas who drives past a Mosque on my way to the grocery store. My friends, neighbors, coworkers, and relatives include everything from born again fundamentalist Christians to Wiccans, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Native Americans, Mormons, and Atheists.

Here in Texas you can celebrate Cinco De Mayo in front of the Alamo. We can watch Anime on December 7th. And on St. Patrick's Day, my Irish relatives can sit down with my Scots Irish (Orangemen all by their ancestory) relatives and all drink a beer and toast Ireland. Not one of them cares about which side their ancestor were on. We're all just Irish on St. Patty's day.

And yet, when I listen to Muslim Clerics and such talking about why they hate us they always talk about something that some people from Europe did some folks from where they live 700 years ago. We aren't the people who did it them. And you are not the people it happened to. What kind of sickness is at the core of a society that keeps a grudge for 700 years?

Of course, that is the problem. The extremist Muslims seem to still be nursing a grudge from 700 years ago. Every heard a European express a grudge against the Mongols 700 years ago? No? Me neither. But, we are dealing with people who use something that happened 700 years ago as justification for killing us.

One last comment: You don't want to piss off every South Park fan in the world. You really don't. Kill South Park and millions of people who don't currently even bother to vote will become your implacable enemies. Blowing up lower Manhattan is one thing. Messing with a favorite TV show, now that is something you do not want to do.

Stonewolf

P.S.

I'm a great great grandson of John D. Lee. (look up "The Mountain Meadow Massacre. And yes, according to my family he did it.) So I understand what religious fanaticism can do to people at a deep personal level. I truly hope that this problem passes into history with no more violence. But, I deeply fear that it will lead to the deaths of millions, if not billions, of people.

Do you have any idea how many muslims there are in the world, vs. how many have committed terrible acts in the name of their religion? That ratio could be considered "isolated incidents" as well. Granted, my gut reaction is that the M ratio would be higher than the C, but it's still a very small percentage.

The scientologists did not look kindly on south park either, but they don't like anyone messing with their cult^H^H^H^H religion so it was to be expected.

At least Matt and Trey are mostly even as they will mock everything and everyone. I don't see why any group of like minded people can't be made fun of myself, although this is not the case with physical attributes where negative stereotypes may be reinforced.

Funny you mention the "move into the 21st century with the rest of us" bit. I've been taking a seminar on terrorism and one (of the many) reasons the middle east and (some of) the Muslims that inhabit it are so prone to violence is because they've had considerably less time to modernize. Europe and America had hundreds of years to turn from an agrarian society into a modern one. The middle eastern world has had considerably less time, and yet they still have access to all the AK-47s they can imagine. The modernization of the western world was not a clean process, but we had a lot of time to do it. Now we expect the same of all these random goat herders, but they don't want to drop their farm and start working in a cubicle and watching comedy central. This isn't the only reason for terrorism, but its something to ponder anyway.

My other thought as soon as I read the summary is, "You idiots. They did this to illustrate how stupid it is to get up in arms over a mere image. The fact that you took the bait and threatened actual violence against the South Park creators shows how backwards and moronic your whole life is. You have failed epically."

Of course, that would sound a bit like flamebait itself, but its pretty much the case. If a poorly drawn bear suit on a cartoon on TV thats merely purported to be "Muhammad" is an issue for you, maybe its time to grow some thicker skin.

The 'Muslim world', for the most part, didn't have the scale of change as the 'western world' did during the Industrial Revolution. They basically missed it. Now in the last several decades, we have countries trying to go from the Industrial Revolution to the Information age (and we hope skipping the Nuclear Age) all at once.

In other words, they had the same amount of time since OUR modernization started, but they only recently started their process. Thus, they get what was 2 centuries-worth of growing pains for us, packed into just a few decades.

How about two groups with very similar kinds of growing pains... say India and Pakistan. They both started in relatively the same state following India's independence, have a similar geography, similar governance, and have both experienced the same pressures for modernization that you're asserting. Seems that the big difference between the two comes down to religion and the culture that results. Which one has the stronger presence and tolerance of terrorists?

Funny you mention the "move into the 21st century with the rest of us" bit. I've been taking a seminar on terrorism and one (of the many) reasons the middle east and (some of) the Muslims that inhabit it are so prone to violence is because they've had considerably less time to modernize. Europe and America had hundreds of years to turn from an agrarian society into a modern one. The middle eastern world has had considerably less time

Excuse me? The birthplace of civilization, the first known farming areas, have had LESS time to modernize?

Funny you mention the "move into the 21st century with the rest of us" bit. I've been taking a seminar on terrorism and one (of the many) reasons the middle east and (some of) the Muslims that inhabit it are so prone to violence is because they've had considerably less time to modernize.

Uh huh. And so did South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, and Ireland.

Your seminar is based on a solid piece of stupid. Time to assimilate is not strongly correlated with violent reactions to criticism.

As a counterexample: Hawaiians had nearly zero time to "modernize," and they aren't preternatural terrorists (despite the nutjob secessionists).

But they also don't have a book like the Quran that tells them to kill unbelievers and blasphemers (and that not being a believer is being a blasphemer, leaving only one "logical" conclusion).

Further, the Mideast has had just as long to modernize as the West has. They've merely refused to, or rather, not been allowed to because of the tight grip their feudal lords keep on power (aided, again, by the Quran).

The problem is the illogic of the Quran and the number of people who accept it unquestioningly, not any pop-sociology.

The Middle East has had more time to modernize than Western Civilization has. They have have no excuse for not being world leaders; the Middle East was at one time the greatest center of learning and science in the world. To say they have not had an opportunity to modernize is bull. They have continued to live in the iron age due to the choices they have made; not a lack of opportunity. And this garbage has persisted even into the current century.

Agreed, and the Iranian experience up until the collapse of the Shah proves it. Up through 1979, Iran was rather "civilized" by Western standards, at least culturally/economically. In many ways similar to China today. It is difficult to imagine now, but there was an alliance between Iran and Israel [wikipedia.org].

At one point, Syria and Lebanon were both developing briskly. For the most part, the Islamic extremist/militant/political resurgence sprung up with the Iranian Revolution. Since then, each nation in the region has done its damnedest to Islamicize as fast as possible, most likely as a counterweight to their economic failures.

I can speak from family experience, and friend experience, that Iran pre-1979 was culturally very liberal; with public social behavior that would make Westerners' blush. Pre-1979 Iran was the number one customer of AT&T's USA Long Distance minutes, worldwide. The 1973-74 oil embargo had resulted in vast amounts of wealth heading into the Middle East, and many had assumed that in the long run Tehran would be the new banking/financial capital of the world.

Development is not an inevitable force. One merely has to look at the promising states of the third world, such as Vietnam, North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe, Cuba; many of these places were considered economic miracles at one point.

Then crappy dictators took over, corruption ran rampant, and the rising stars collapsed. Venezuela is on this path now.

Some of these states survive, and turned things around, slowly; like Vietnam, and to some extent Lebanon.

They have have no excuse for not being world leaders; the Middle East was at one time the greatest center of learning and science in the world.I cannot agree with this statement more. In addition to having advanced societies, the incredible oil wealth of the Middle East was probably the greatest concentration of natural wealth in a given region, ever. That the regimes of these nations have managed to squander these vast, immense, incredible resources is nothing short of criminal. Criminal isn't even the right word for it.

It is *simply* *unimaginable* that gas is about $0.29 in Iran; and that most of it is imported since they no longer have the refinery capacity to manufacturer it. It is *simply* *unimaginable* that it is a common sight to see gallons of fuel splashed into the streets of Tehran, because it is so "value-less" to the consumer. It is *shocking* and *disturbing* that Iran and Syria trade away vast quantities of high-quality, industrial resources to China or Russia for a pile of worthless, outdated weaponry which will inevitably used to oppress their citizens.

These things are a humanitarian tragedy of epic proportions. These nations have truly squandered their wealth. 20-50 years from now, they will have no natural resources left, and will have nothing to show for that massive destruction of wealth; and most of them will endure starvation and poor standards of living between now and then!

You can't blame religion for idiots any more than you can blame politics for idiots. Some people will use any excuse to force control on others - religion, politics, science; It's a power thing and it drives every human being on the planet. Most of us just wrangle it in to something reasonable.

The problem with attacking religion is it's not the problem. So down the road when religion is destroyed the people will use another excuse to kill or control. The shit is never ending. But everywhere it appears we mu

It's like with skin color: The genetic differences within a human "race" are bigger than the genetic differences which differentiate them from other "races". The differences within a religious group are bigger than the differences between religious groups. A moderate Christian has more in common with a moderate Muslim than a with a radical Christian. The problems we're seeing are caused by fundamentalist religious nutjobs, not by a particular religion. In poor environments, the teachings and ideologies of t

As a moderate Christian, I'm glad I don't live in a Christian theocracy as well.

That said, there is a significant difference between the foundation of the two religions. Jesus said "...love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and unjust alike." (From Matthew's biography of Jesus) And Peter, one of his disciples, and a leader in early Christianity, wrote: "God called you to do good, even if it means suffering, just as Christ suffered for you. He is your example, and you must follow in his steps. He never sinned, nor ever deceived anyone. He did not retaliate when he was insulted, nor threaten revenge when he suffered. He left his case in the hands of God, who always judges fairly." (Letter from Peter, one of Jesus' disciples, to early Christians). For a "Christian" nutjob to make the same kind of violent threat, they'd have to completely ignore most of the New Testament.

I've read much of the Koran, I haven't found the same kinds of sentiments or statements in Islam. Mohammed was a political power, in charge of an army, who promised his followers lavish rewards if they died fighting for their faith, and had no objection in spreading Islam by military means. Although there will always be a certain percentage of people prone to be "nutjobs", I can't help but think that the Christian history and scriptures at least tend to make nutjobs less violent, while the Muslim history and scriptures don't.

I hate to refute this because you seem like a type of person that practices religion because it's important to *you*. I respect that.

But, quite frankly, both sides can pull random quotes of scripture out of a book and say that they are all about love and togetherness. At the end of day I'm still told that I should be put to death because I’m gay. (Leviticus 20:13). That's just as extremist.

Remember Islam is about 6 centuries younger than Christianity. Read some of the history of Christianity from the 1400's and you will find similar violent reactions of Jesus depicted in any non-sacred way. Jesus was not even portrayed in cinema until 1961's "King of King's".

However, with the Muslims...c'mon, it seems the crazies are almost in the majority over there. I doubt you've seen that much news footage with radical christians out in the the street burning someone in effigy, changing death to _______.

Sure it may seem that way if the only exposure you have ever had with Muslims is from news clips.

Maybe the fact that you see the majority of Muslims as crazies has more to do with the misinformation you've picked up and your own biases than with the actual craziness of most Muslims. Perhaps there are reasons you don't see the violent actions of Christian fundamentalists reported in the media. Remember the Christian militia that was plotting to kill government officials? Wasn't that long ago. Whatever happened to them? Why haven't we read more about them in the media?

If you scream while immolating yourself, you aren't doing it right. The Vietnamese Buddhist who torched himself sat peacefully in the lotus pose with a beatific smile on his face while he burned. And that, kids, is what inner peace is really all about. If it is possible to train your mind so that you can calmly burn yourself to death without moving a muscle, nothing anyone can do to you can possibly affect you. Nobody can have any amount of power over you if you've got that kind of self control.

And Jesus went 33 years without having a wife, probably without having sex with a woman (extramarital sex) despite hanging out with a prostitute (Mary Magdalene). Instead he opted to hang out with 12 sailors, even though he knew he'd be thrown in jail the next day and killed a few days later. Obviously he was gay.

I'm not pointing fingers, but isn't it strange that you have people idolizing Jesus, when at the same time they run around screaming bloody murder at gay people?

Mohammed (PBUH) did have a 7 year old wife. People who idolize that while threatening violence toward a cartoon are, well, not stable.

Lol, same old bullshit. Gatorboy refers to Aisha whose age at marriage is yet another unknown that anti-islamic extremists like to hang their hats on - there is just as much evidence to suggest that she was 17 as there is to suggest she was 7, for example it was common for arabs to leave the tens digit off of numbers when they thought the magnitude was obvious. There are other contemporaneous references that also suggest Aisha was significantly older than 7, and really only one major reference that she was 7 - except that particular chronicler isn't considered an expert on Aisha and was like 70 himself when he wrote about it long after the fact. In any case, Aisha is probably the most accomplished and revered of his wives, so all the evidence suggests she did not end up damaged so was probably not subjected to the accused immorality in the first place.

The South Park guys seem to mock anything and everything. However, their targets don't usually threaten with violence, do they?

I think they actually knew what they could be getting themselves into when they did this. Even though South Park seems "childish", it does do social commentary, and it shows that the authors seem to be paying attention to the world around them. I may not agree with everything they have done, but in my opinion, it's better that they do too much than too little. It's important that someone has the balls to stand up and speak out. And now they dared to touch Muhammad.

That said, have they ever refused to parody or ridicule someone or something? Is there anything that is "sacred" to them?

Muhammad might be sacred to Muslims, and they may be offended by this. But this is exactly why Muhammad needs to be ridiculed even more. Nothing should be above criticism and ridicule, and if some think that they or their symbols are, they should be the target of even more ridicule, until they understand that they will not be able to do anything they please without criticism for their wrongdoings.

Let's hope Matt and Trey won't end up as "martyrs" of free speech, though. We need them around to keep doing what they do.

That said, have they ever refused to parody or ridicule someone or something? Is there anything that is "sacred" to them?

I seem to remember that they were close to backing off of Scientologists, mainly because of Isaac Hayes (voice of Chef) is one. But then they went ahead and did it anyway, so he quit, and they made a big deal about Chef leaving town to join some evil cultish adventure club.

IMO, nothing is sacred to them. They ridicule pretty much everything, which is one of the reasons I love the show. Like you, I don't really agree with all of the offensive things they have portrayed, but at the same time I did laugh at a lot of things that many people would find offensive. I think that a show like that has some cultural value, at the very least to let us see how ridiculous some of our prejudices and sensitivities are.

That said, have they ever refused to parody or ridicule someone or something? Is there anything that is "sacred" to them?

Watch the "all about Mormons" episode, and pay very careful attention to the last five minutes.

They go out of their way to essentially say: "This thing we're making fun of? Yeah, well, you shouldn't lose respect of it because we made fun of it. In fact a lot of its members are really perfectly fine people who you should respect, and we're jackasses for making fun of them. We'll do it anyway, but we wanted to make sure that everyone knows we're aware that we're being jackasses for making fun of them."

That is their version of "sacred". And I respect the hell out of them for it.

...is to increase the number of targets by several orders of magnitude. No, really, I'm quite serious. If everyone posts or publishes a cartoon simultaneously mocking Mohammed, Jesus, and Moses, there will be no practical way for religious extremists to respond. (Yes, I know there are other religions, but it's the big three monotheist camps that are making most of the trouble.)

Part of the plot of the episode was the characters worrying that Muhammad was going to appear in their town. They kept asking "is that okay" in the episode... representations of Muhammad as a stick figure to Muhammad inside a U-Haul prompt worried questions from the characters... eventually the characters opt to place Muhammad in a full-body bear suit so he was not visible.

Always remember when the media portrays this sort of threat it is the extremists. There is nothing wrong with 95% of Islam followers - just like there is nothing wrong with 95% of Christianity, its the 5% of Christians/Muslims that blow up buildings. Just like its the 5% of Atheists, 5% of NRA members, etc.. that blow up buildings! Its got little to do with the religion, and more about the people

Will you stand by your claim that proportionally as many (self-proclamed) Christians and atheists engage in acts of religious terrorism as Muslims? Can you provide a reference to back this claim?

What a total wimp-out of a headline. A 'warning' is when the weatherman says 'it looks icy out today, drive slow.' When someone calls upon the nut-jobs of the world to murder you because you pissed off their bronze-age sky fairy, that's inciting violence, an explicit threat. I'm willing to go pretty far in support of free speech, but this is definitely "fire in a crowded theater" material.

Obviously you have not watched this episode. The intent of putting Muhammad in a bear suit was not to mock Muhammad but to criticize the fact that no one is allowed to depict Muhammad at all in his human form. South Park has made fun of just about every celebrity, religious figure, and political leader possible. They regularly make fun of Jesus in a country full of Christians and are not threatened by violence, but simply depicting Muhammad without even showing his human form subjects them to threats on

From watching the episode, the entire point of it seemed to be to show the absurdity of a prohibition on any depiction of someone. By making a depiction of Muhammed (PBUH) that involved no image that was recognizably of him, they showed that the prohibition was ridiculous, because it is then a blanket prohibition on any image. I could say that the category icon for this story was a depiction of the Prophet disguised as a white man in glasses with a black rectangle over his mouth - suddenly that would be a prohibited image.CAVEAT: This line of argument also means that prohibitions on depictions of things that _we_ think shouldn't be allowed are also absurd.Finally, this is not to say that I think that any image is acceptable, but it must have to do with the objective content (or at least consensus agreement of what the objective content is), rather than what the artist intended it to depict, or what it may have been interpreted as depicting.

Is that Islam has not undergone a process analogous to the Enlightenment.

Pre-Enlightenment, much of Europe was basically a mass of warring theocracies, split between the Catholic ones and the Protestant ones. Separation of church and state were basically nonexistent, blasphemy laws were on the books(and had real teeth, with limited exceptions[thanks a whole fucking lot Ireland] the ones that remain are just relics at this point). You easily could be, and people were, killed for having the wrong doctrinal positions. Censorship was rampant. Things pretty much sucked.

Thanks to the dedicated(and at times heroic, not a few faced jail, or worse) efforts of various Enlightenment figures, along with a number of political occurrences(the French Revolution had its minuses; but it did have the salubrious effect of annihilating a schlerotic and corrupt divine-right absolutism and replacing it with a secular nation-state. The Glorious Revolution in England was less dramatic; but went rather better. Then, of course, you had the American Revolution, which was absolutely dripping with Enlightenment sentiment[much to the displeasure of today's crop of "America is a Christian Nation founded on the Bible!!! Dominionist nutjobs]).

The Enlightenment was not an easy process. Much blood, sweat, and ink were spilled; but the results helped make the modern west the more-or-less pleasant place it is today. It was basically the death-knell of absolutist theocracy in the west, and the impetus behind the broad introduction of fun concepts like "human rights" and "freedom of religion"(also coffeehouses and atheism, what's not to love?).

The relatively benign forms of Christianity that we think of today are basically creations of the Enlightenment(even among the zealous, things like persecution and warfare between Catholics, protestants, and various sects thereof are basically off the table). It wasn't always that way. Even today, there are reactionary hardliners who would really prefer to roll things back(Rushdooney and the "Reconstructionists", for instance, "Dominionists" more generally, are the main thrust of that in the US, where the hardcore are predominantly fundamentalist protestants. On the European stage, we still have the Catholic church pretending that its "canon law", rather than being simply a set of rules for a private club, somehow takes precedence over Civil Law. Without substantial moderating influences, Abrahamic monotheisms are mean, ugly, primitive, and brutal.

Unfortunately, Islam has not, historically, experienced an analogous process. This doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of more-or-less modern people who are nominally "muslim" in the same way that much of the west is still nominally "christian"; but it does mean that none of the major strains of Islam have been subjected to the radical reduction in power that all the various flavors of Christianity have. For instance, a Christian advocate of theocratic government qualifies as a right-wing nutjob(they exist in surprisingly large numbers, unfortunately; but they still qualify as a fringe position). In large areas of the world, Islamic theocracy(either as a matter of law, or in the form of a state so heavily subservient to religious enthusiasts and Sharia courts that it might as well be) is simply the local form of government.

This is not to say that there is anything intrinsically superior about Christianity. It fought progress tooth-and-nail, every step of the way, during the Enlightenment. To this day, it harbors downright nasty reactionary elements. And, despite protestations to the contrary, most of the noblest aspects of our society exist in spite of rather than because of it. (Fun stuff like "Civil law" and "freedom of conscience" are either classical, or modern derivations from the classical philosophical tradition). However, because Islam has not been subjected to the moderating(some would say "neutering") influence of an Enlightenment, it retains many of the ugly elements that Christianity no longer has the political power or cultural clout to employ.

Turkey went through a period of Enlightenment like what you're describing after WWI(Ataturk was a big proponent of Enlightenment ideals) and it's amazing how quickly things have changed there. The religion itself is unimportant, it's all about the people who have opportunities to change things.

but in the end, this hobbles and impoverishes the islamic world, because you have essentially banned freedom of thought in your culture, which is the only means by which social and technological progress occurs. the muslim world has money because they have oil. but the world is moving past oil. eventually, the muslim world will find that oil doesn't pay anymore, and that nothing else in their sphere of influence pays anything either, and they will sink into poverty

a culture is rich when the ideas the culture cherishes are rich. but if your culture values extreme obedience to unquestionable static ideas, you will have a poor culture (unless its artificially propped up by things like natural resources, as is the current situation). either the moderate muslims effectively control and shut up the large number of fundamentalists in their midsts, or the future of the muslim world is poverty and violence. that's the simple truth

there are fundamentalists in every culture and religion, and every culture and religion in the world has a problem with fundamentalist assholes running around insisting on regimented obedience to unquestionable ideas and ready to do violence if no one listens to them. but you are blind and intellectually dishonest if you don't see that the muslim world has a greater than average amount of such fundamentalists. and the key point: they are funded by the petrodollars

therefore, it is the moral duty of the rest of the world to move off of oil as an energy source, in order to drain the well of muslim fundamentalists dry. there is the pollution argument, the national security argument, the limited resources argument, but to me, the most compelling argument for getting off oil is the humanist argument: there is direct connection between using oil and funding muslim fundamentalism in this world. this is the crucial realization everyone must understand: the best way to fight muslim fundamentalism, better than wars, better than idea exchange, better than political maneuvering: move off of oil as a fuel source

stop using oil, on a personal level and a national policy level, every country in the world. or we will all suffer more, in the wider world and the muslim world, due to the braindead fundamentalist assholes running around

Religion needs to be mocked, but Islam more so than Christianity. The stronger the reaction to parody and ridicule, the more parody and ridicule is required to smack religion into its rightful subdued state (in society).

Islam, true Islam, is extremely peaceful. However like any large faith, it is often perverted by those who seek to use it to gain political power. A perfect example of this is Paul from the Christian faith. A simple skim over the books he wrote even leaves the most ignorant aware of the fact that he did not follow the teachings of Jesus. His books have been altered even more in the centuries since then to suit the political pressures at the time.. some parts were cut out, some were added in.

Everything else about following his lessons and teachings is entirely open to interpretation. They would argue that They are true christians while others are not, just how others argue they are true christians while the kkk are not.

In the case of technicalities, Just because they say they are Christian, DOES make them Christian.

Sort of, but I think it mostly derives from certain Muslim traditions that either discourage or outright ban visual depictions of any living creature, particularly humans. This is part of the reason the Taliban in Afghanistan blew up those giant statues of Buddha, and also the reason we had all those stories early in the "war on terror" about how hard it was to find specific bad guys we were looking for (because few or no pictures of them existed, because having their picture taken was forbidden). Extremist Islamic groups have taken these traditions and radicalized them to the point where basically any depiction of Mohammad (or presumably anyone else, although they seem to get particularly offended if it's Mohammad) punishable by death by suicide bomber.

More mainstream Muslims don't care quite that much about it, and it's worth noting that there are plenty of paintings and other art works in Muslim areas featuring visual depictions of Muhammad dating back hundreds of years. This is just another symptom of what happens when people with extremist views have access to lots of explosives: their views get a whole lot more attention than they normally would.

According to a 2 June 1999, article in The Virginian-Pilot,[23] Robertson had extensive business dealings with Liberian president Charles Taylor. According to the article, Taylor gave Robertson the rights to mine for diamonds in Liberia's mineral-rich countryside. According to two Operation Blessing pilots who reported this incident to the state of Virginia for investigation in 1994, Robertson used his Operation Blessing planes to haul diamond-mining equipment to Robertson's mines in Liberia, despite the fact that Robertson was telling his 700 Club viewers that the planes were sending relief supplies to the victims of the genocide in Rwanda. In response to Taylor's alleged crimes against humanity the United States Congress passed a bill In November 2003 that offered two million dollars for his capture. Robertson accused President Bush of "undermining a Christian, Baptist president to bring in Muslim rebels to take over the country." At the time Taylor was harboring Al Qaeda operatives who were funding their operations through the illegal diamond trade.[24] On February 4, 2010, at his war crimes trial in the Hague, Charles Taylor testified that Robertson was his main political ally in the U.S., and that he had volunteered to make Liberia's case before U.S. administration officials in exchange for concessions to Robertson's Freedom Gold, Ltd., to which Taylor gave a contract to mine gold in southeast Liberia.